Yes, i'm familiar with this particular exchange. It is in regards to a man who was born in the colonies, but went to England for quite some time, only to return to America After the war was over. It was argued that he therefore did not meet the criteria for being a US Citizen as he had not been Raised in the U.S and therefore had no loyalty to it.bcglorf wrote:5 seconds of Google and wiki 'research' came up with the following:Diogenes wrote:Yes, but he doesn't even meet the LETTER of the natural born citizen clause. All research i've seen to date indicates that the father being an American citizen is an absolute must.hanelyp wrote:The 0 in his first year far surpassed Dubya's blunders in 8.
As for the birth certificate issue, even if the 0 was born on US soil, he was raised in his early years overseas, away from American influences, in gross violation to the spirit of the natural born citizen clause.
May 1789, James Madison: "It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
Madison is expressing his opinion as to whether he was a citizen or not, which is a distinctly different thing from Article II "Natural Born Citizen", which is based on a Specific term derived from the Book "Law of Nations" by Emerich Vatell. The Law of England at the time was that Any child born of an English Father is automatically a British Subject.
Article II is ENTIRELY about loyalty. I would point out that the indians and black born in America were not even Citizens, let alone "Natural Born Citizens." You see, it really DID matter whether your parents were citizens or not. Even in England, You had to be Born OF a Noble house, not in one. (to be a peer.)
bcglorf wrote: Or perhaps more relevant to the case at hand. In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. The AG's response:
our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
You leave out the fact that Prior to the United States, the people born in a country were SUBJECTS, not Citizens, and in that regard it Always behooved the Monarchy to claim them as his property. The United States Broke with that interpretation of the relationship between a man and his country. An American can renounce his citizenship, but a subject cannot. In any case, I hardly think Salmon P. Chase knew as much about the intent of the founders as did the founders themselves, and they are QUITE specific regarding their intentions that there should be no foreign influence in the Highest office of the land. I have quotes, which I will get to in due time if you find this topic worth discussing.
Geeze, you throwing too much crap at me for me to answer all of it properly. I have answers to everything you've got, but they take time. I have to dig through my references until I find the appropriate part, so if you want to use a scattershot approach, it's going to get very messy and difficult for me to keep up with you.bcglorf wrote: Or more recently, a 2009 memo to Congress from the Congressional Research Service states:
Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the naturalization act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth"or" by birth.
Let's take the Naturalization act of 1790. Your reference implies that it's good enough for them, so I figure it ought to be good enough for you. This is what it says.
Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: . . .
I will further point out, that at this time the mother's citizenship didn't matter at all. ONLY the father could transfer citizenship. According to the laws in existence at that time, the Wife's citizenship was automatically the same as the Husband's.
So, according to the Act of Congress you cited, it specifically excludes anyone who's Father have never been resident in the United States. That pretty much let's out Obama. His Father was not a resident, as the term was defined in 1790.
Now I will of course, point out that the meaning and intent of an Article Of the U.S. Constitution CANNOT be modified by an act of congress, so it really doesn't matter What they said in 1790, or any time subsequently, it requires a constitutional Amendment to change the meaning of any of the original terms. This is even true when the Act of Congress agrees with my side.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
bcglorf wrote: Furthermore, and lest there be any more deliberate confusion, under the 14th amendment all persons born within the United States are citizens at birth.
The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to those born under the Jurisdiction of the United States. It does not grant Article II "Natural Born Citizen" status. The guy who WROTE the 14th Amendment even said that
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:
Here is also a link to a Lawyer who has researched this to the hilt.Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/